On chip texture cache is a hardware patent, but there are many software aspects to OpenGL implementations, and it’s all the more interesting when you consider the application of middlewear code that might sit on OpenGL but not be part of the implementation some of which is now perhaps working its way into OpenGL 2.0.
I don’t believe in excluding ourselves from a meanigful discussion just because a lawyer used a word and not an engineer. There is empirical evidence beyond books on contract law of what the word means for OpenGL implementors, the word is still English and interpreted by law. I just need to look at the disputes that have risen to public attention to understand (in my unsophisticated engineer’s fashion) about the caveat ‘necessary’ in this context. You are aware of why I deliberately chose the example I did of course.
I wonder if Microsoft will show up to the next ARB meeting with a lawyer.
[This message has been edited by dorbie (edited 01-23-2002).]